Captives In Iraq

Diplomacy Without Concessions May End Standoff

March 28, 1995

Part of what separates the United States from dictatorships is its respect for life and human rights. So it is that Iraq's detention of two Americans who were in the country illegally has swiftly escalated into an international incident.

One cannot imagine such an incident happening along Iraq's borders with, say, the former Soviet Union or Iran. Nor is it likely either of those two would have made much of the matter. And Iraq might not have imposed eight-year sentences on persons who were not Americans for what appear to be minor offenses.

The agenda, of course, is that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein continues to think he can extract concessions from his archenemy, the United States, by acting tough.

The United States must be careful not to overreact. The State Department most certainly should not be influenced by bellicose talk show utterances. It is another American trait that sensitive diplomatic issues such as this one are debated loudly and publicly. But getting these men freed is going to depend on quiet persistence. A military rescue would be diplomatically ill-advised and logistically difficult.

Patience has served the United States well before. Examples include the Iranian hostage crisis, the incident with the flier and North Korea three months ago and a similar case involving Iraq and a single captive in 1993.

The United States should not make any concessions regarding the war-related economic sanctions because Saddam has not met the conditions. Quiet diplomacy, and an insistence that William Barloon and David Daliberti strayed over the border inadvertently, should get them freed.